With the Apple v. Samsung patent trial underway, Samsung has angered both US District Court Judge Lucy Koh and Apple by providing the press evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in court. Koh demanded that Samsung lawyers explain the leak, and Apple today asked Koh to issue sanctions against Samsung for trying to influence the jury through the media.

"This deliberate attempt to influence the trial with inadmissible evidence is both improper and unethical," Apple lawyer William Lee wrote in a letter to Judge Koh today, noting that Apple will today file "an emergency motion for sanctions and other relief that may be appropriate."

Apple and Samsung have been arguing over whether the iPhone is a knockoff of Samsung products. But after Koh refused to let Samsung show evidence including phone designs that pre-dated the iPhone, Samsung leaked the evidence to the press (you can see it at AllthingsD) along with a statement. "Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone," the company said.

Koh was not happy, as she had previously ruled that the evidence was submitted too late in the legal process, the BBC wrote. Koh demanded a written explanation, which was provided today by Samsung attorney John Quinn. Quinn admitted authorizing the public release of the Samsung statement and exhibits that he wanted to show at trial. But he said this did not violate any court order, and that "all of the material in the excluded trial demonstrative exhibits at issue was previously in the public record."

The evidence would have shown "that the iPhone was inspired by 'Sony style' and that Samsung had independently created the design for the F700 phone," which Apple alleged was an iPhone copy, Quinn wrote. Releasing details to the press in response to media requests was not a violation of the legal process, he argued.

"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility… and legal authorities regarding attorneys' communications with the press," Quinn wrote.

That explanation did not appease Apple. Jurors have been repeatedly instructed not to read about the case in the press, but Lee argued that Samsung's leak was made with the intent to influence the jury. "Samsung's multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press," Lee wrote.

Apple did not say exactly what types of sanctions it wants against Samsung, but will likely expound on its views in the emergency motion it plans to file.

The exhibits Samsung wanted to show at trial include slide decks with images of Samsung phone designs from 2006, as well as quotes from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori who referenced "Sony-like designs" influencing Apple's early iPhone mockups. Samsung repeatedly tried to change Koh's mind about the admissibility of evidence, but the judge held firm, saying in court yesterday "Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you, please."

The judge is supposed to guide the exposure of the truth. Judge Koh can play all the games she wants we suppressing Samsung's evidence, but their lawyers in this country still have a right to free speech. If they want to hand over evidence they aren't using in the trial to journalists, there should be no issue.

I agree the evidence should normally be admissible. However, the article states that the evidence was rejected because it was submitted too late in the process. If Samsung really wanted this evidence included, why would it wait so long to submit it?

If I remember correctly, Oracle wasn't allowed to add a couple patents to its case against Google for a similar reason, and they actually had a valid reason: waiting for the patents to be ruled valid (can't remember if this was the Oracle/Google case or another, but the point still stands).

wait what... they had proof of designs that predate something they allegedly copied??? and the court is complaining??? hell if I was Samsung I would be screaming to high heaven!

Samsung's lawyer did, he brought the evidence for approval more than three times and even begged the court to allow the evidence. Samsung was late submitting it as evidence and judge Koh decided not to allow the F700 in. Then after Apple included the F700 in their material, judge Koh still refused to allow the F700 to be an issue. Under any normal judicial prudence, the F700 went on the table as soon as Apple brought it up.

Basically, from everything publicly exposed, judge Koh is running a show trial. In a criminal case for example, significant exculpating evidence is still allowed if it is brought in late, but additional time is granted for both sides to examine the evidence and prepare their cases.

It's pretty common in civil cases for some evidence to be presented late as well. Particularly given Samsung's size and the scope of different departments working on cell phones, it's not unsurprising that they are probably still finding engineers' doodles, renderings, drawings, and other materials as they dig out archives. They aren't a monolithic company like Apple where they only work on 5 or 6 products a year. They literally produce thousands of finished consumer products and thousands more parts for their consumer product competitors to use in their products.

The ghost of Steve Jobs would come to your house and destroy it, presumably using thermonuclear weapons. No refunds or compensation; its clearly your fault as a consumer for buying a patent-infringing product.

I honestly worry that as part of their ongoing thermonuclear warfare, Apple will begin suing end-users of Android devices, as they are technically allowed to do. So far no one has, as there is no money to be had in it, but I think the threat of being the direct target of a patent infringement case would be a good deterrent to stop the average consumer from purchasing a non-Apple phone. As soon as the first articles come out about Joe Android User having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars as a judgment, or maybe even just $100,000 in legal bills to defend himself, the public will begin to freak out.

And Apple, please note that I am going to patent this procedure as a "business method," so enjoy paying me royalties if you decide to follow my advice!

Unethical, as in denying Samsung the ability to present evidence that could be vital to their defense?

Just my sideline observation here, but Samsung doesn't seem to be getting a fair trial in the least.

Perhaps they should have filed that evidence on time then? There's a reason evidence produced at the last minute is inadmissible (the other side isn't given time to properly prepare for it). Following due process is what makes for a fair trial.

Anyway, one of these is not like the other (and it's not the iPhone). http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_asset ... AB46C4.jpgThe F700 would have certainly helped their defence, but it's far from a slam dunk. I don't really understand why Samsung's legal team seems completely disorganized, and that could be more of a problem than this evidence not being admissible.

The issue isn't whether this represents 'prior art' but simply Samsung calling foul. Judge Koh's ruling was made because it was a late submission - rejecting late evidence is standard practice. Frankly, I have very little sympathy with Samsung because it's not like they don't pay their lawyers a lot of money to stop this kind of debacle.

It's looking like Samsung's lawyers are incompetent. Two days in a row they have upset the Judge and the jury will be taking note. Ultimately the jury are making the decision and appearances count for a Hell of a lot when a jury are deciding the case.

Unethical, as in denying Samsung the ability to present evidence that could be vital to their defense?

Just my sideline observation here, but Samsung doesn't seem to be getting a fair trial in the least.

Although I'm not sure of Judge Koh's leanings in this case, I will say that there are rules that govern the admissibility of evidence for a reason. You can't, halfway through a trial, try to strong-arm some evidence in when the discovery part has already ended. It's not fair to Apple to have to respond to the "smoking-gun" evidence. What if, for example, the documents were doctored? How would Apple be able to prove it? Should they have to scramble mid-trial to investigate the evidence while simultaneously arguing on the evidence that had been properly submitted?

Love or hate either side, it sounds like Samsung's legal counsel really botched this one. They didn't get the evidence in when they should have (rule #1 as a lawyer is meet your deadlines), they tried to strong-arm it in after the fact (which the court obviously did not appreciate), and then when they were told "no," they advise Samsung to release the documents to the media in a way that clearly is trial-motivated. At least if you're going to do that, try to call it a saving throw for PR entirely unrelated to the rulings of the case rather than simply claiming "no, it's okay. I'm allowed to do this."

I'm skeptical that Samsung has infringed, but they at least need to put together a well-formed argument instead of a dog-and-pony show.

Evidence presented too late in the process. What a load of crap. I don't CARE what the letter of the law says; if you come up with evidence supporting your position a nanosecond before a verdict is declared, it SHOULD be admissible.

Yes, I get it... prosecution will sit on evidence and wait until late in a process to produce it, so the defense isn't ready for it. Yes, that's bad. The answer isn't to deny the evidence. The answer is to pause the entire case until the defense has had a reasonable period of time to review and address the evidence.

Inconvenient, yes, and massively so. But FAIR.

I'm sorry but answering "your honour... we have just been handed video footage of the accused committing the alleged crime, plus Jesus Christ Himself as eyewitness that the defendant is guilty" should NOT be answered with "you should have announced that evidence during discovery... denied."

Unethical, as in denying Samsung the ability to present evidence that could be vital to their defense?

Just my sideline observation here, but Samsung doesn't seem to be getting a fair trial in the least.

++

It is not like they did not have time to bring this to court sooner. The attic is to bring questionable evidence in at the last minute so the other side is unaware and unprepared. For the truly ethically compromised it is a good way to get evidence barred from the trial so it can leak to the jurors without a real argument or intentionally botch a case for public sympathy. Considering the money riding on this case I would thingk samsung would be prepared on time if they thought it to there advantage.

Evidence presented too late in the process. What a load of crap. I don't CARE what the letter of the law says; if you come up with evidence supporting your position a nanosecond before a verdict is declared, it SHOULD be admissible.

Yes, I get it... prosecution will sit on evidence and wait until late in a process to produce it, so the defense isn't ready for it. Yes, that's bad. The answer isn't to deny the evidence. The answer is to pause the entire case until the defense has had a reasonable period of time to review and address the evidence.

Inconvenient, yes, and massively so. But FAIR.

I'm sorry but answering "your honour... we have just been handed video footage of the accused committing the alleged crime, plus Jesus Christ Himself as eyewitness that the defendant is guilty" should NOT be answered with "you should have announced that evidence during discovery... denied."

What you're essentially saying is that you'd rather Defence plays a game with taxpayers' money and wastes time when the deadlines for evidence are well published and covered by rules concerning due process?

Samsung have had this evidence for years. Why did they submit it late? Incompetence. I cannot think of a single other reason. It absolutely should be thrown out rather than waste time with Filibuster-lite techniques.

Samsung's lawyer did, he brought the evidence for approval more than three times and even begged the court to allow the evidence. Samsung was late submitting it as evidence and judge Koh decided not to allow the F700 in. Then after Apple included the F700 in their material, judge Koh still refused to allow the F700 to be an issue. Under any normal judicial prudence, the F700 went on the table as soon as Apple brought it up.

Are you sure about that? (Not sarcastic, honestly asking you if that is true - sources?)

wait what... they had proof of designs that predate something they allegedly copied??? and the court is complaining??? hell if I was Samsung I would be screaming to high heaven!

OK, let me hold you by the hand on this one. In a civil procedure, after the action is filed one of the things that happens is that the plaintiffs and defendants meet with the judge to establish the length of discovery. During Discovery, you MUST submit every scrap of evidence that you are going to use in the trial. The same as your opponent. Your opponent is given all your evidence, as you are given all of theirs. You may also require documents, photos or anything else your opponent may have that will bolster your case. Like emails for instance. *coughcough*

Anything you don't submit during discovery, especially *supposed* ancient prototype photos should be, and typically are rejected. The judge may, at their discretion admit new evidence, meaning something that actually came up *after* discovery closed. Ancient supposed prototype photos don't meet that requirement. It was documentation that was available to the defendant without interruption, that they *CHOSE* to not introduce during discovery.

So this big thing from Samsung is nothing more than Jury Tampering and Contempt of Court. And so many of the gullible on these web sites are just spooning it in.

Samsung F-700. They announced it in February. There was a show in 2007 where they showed it March I believe that was a "non-functional" demo. Final product didn't get released until November. But yeah don't let facts get in the way. They released this information so close to trial of their own material is to not allow the opposition to vet the material, it is dishonest schisterism. Par for course for this defence council. If Samsung gets shown in emails that they actively copied it will be all over at the trial, for juries that is a smoking gun.

Evidence presented too late in the process. What a load of crap. I don't CARE what the letter of the law says; if you come up with evidence supporting your position a nanosecond before a verdict is declared, it SHOULD be admissible.

*Sigh* I should really stop reading the comments sections on legal matters. There's only so many times I can face palm over comments from people who have no idea why the law is the way it is, but will be damned if that will stop them from making completely ignorant statements about what seems fair to them.